MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7154954305 · doi:10.32932/rpia.2025.09.171

Treatment dose increase versus comedication in allergic rhinitis: Systematic review with dose-response network meta-analysis protocol

2025· article· en· W7154954305 on OpenAlexaff
Bernardo Sousa‐Pinto, Rafael José Vieira, Sara Gil‐Mata, A De Sousa Pereira, Vitor Duarte, Antonio Bognanni, Manuel Marques‐Cruz, Paweł Jemioło, Torsten Zuberbier, A. Chu, Holger Schünemann, Guido Schwarzer, Jean Bousquet

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Portuguesa de Imunoalergologia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Systematic reviewRandomized controlled trialClinical trialMeta-analysisNasal administrationFrequentist inference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In patients with allergic rhinitis who remain uncontrolled despite being treated with standard daily doses of a single medication, strategies that can be followed to achieve adequate symptom control include (i) increasing the medication dose, or (ii) adding an additional medication (co-medication). However, it is not known which one of these two strategies is more effective. Objectives: This article describes a protocol of a systematic review with dose-response network meta-analysis aiming at comparing different intranasal and oral medications in patients with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis. Methods: We will search four electronic bibliographic databases and three clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (i) assessing adults or children with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis, and (ii) evaluating the effect of intranasal medications, oral medications or combinations of any intranasal and/or oral medications for allergic rhinitis. Assessed outcomes will include the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). We will assess the methodological quality of included primary studies by using the Cochrane riskof-bias tool. Certainty in the body of evidence for the analysed outcomes will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for network meta-analyses (GRADE-NMA). We will perform a frequentist dose-response model-based network meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses will be performed by separately analysing data for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. Conclusion: This protocol describes the methodology of a systematic review that will fit dose-response network meta-analysis models in the comparison between different intranasal and oral medications. The findings of this systematic review will support recommendations in the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2024-2025 guidelines.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.032
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Portuguesa de ImunoalergologiaSame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207